http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/editorial_opinion/article04


ExxonMobil and safety first: An irony
By Olabisi Talabi

I LOOKED up to see about six policemen shouting and ranting at me. "Are you blind? Can't you see we were in a convoy", one shouted - I wonder when driving in convoy meant blatant and reckless disregard for safety, property and life! Another said, "you are lucky, we could have shot you" - I guess it's now fashionable to shoot unarmed accident victims. Still trying to catch my breath and thoughts, another said "na woman, he no get sense, may we dey go" (she's a lady, she's daft, let's go) and in a flash, they jumped back into their vehicles and attempted to flee the scene of the accident.

Bewildered, I quickly ran after them and was able to cling on the passenger door of one of the police trucks before the door could be shut. I edged forward into the car with half my body still hanging out and the driver began operating the truck. The policeman seated next to me tried loosening my grip on the door rather than help me get fully on board. The driver put the truck in motion with half my body in the truck and the door still ajar. He stopped only when horror-struck motorists barricaded the road with their vehicles forcing a standstill for close to 10 minutes.

Five weeks ago, all this happened on Alfred Rewane Road, Ikoyi at about noon. The said incident occurred when my car was sandwiched between a passenger bus and a police truck as a result of the vehicles trying to re-align themselves in a convoy with a second police truck. The convoy belonged to ExxonMobil and my offence seems to be being an unfortunate road user.

It is one thing to be involved in an accident, it is another to act the fugitive escaping from an accident scene. In the Western world and I dare say in Nigeria too, it's a criminal offence. But it's more appalling when the "fugitives" are law enforcement officers and seconded to a multinational company which it seems they are mandated to protect at the expense of the average citizen of their host country. Or otherwise, how does one justify the events of July 28?

Wednesday after the incident, two officials of ExxonMobil paid me a visit in response to a petition I wrote to the company the day before. The gentlemen said they were shocked when they saw my letter as it contradicted the report of the policemen. According to them, the police men said "a lady hit their truck and she promised to come to the office on Monday to make arrangements for the repair." In my mind, I am thinking: a lady hit their vehicle and they let the lady go without collecting her contact information? What if she doesn't come as promised? Is the Nigeria police that "considerate"? Sounds like a tale for the birds if you ask me and it is very questionable that a large corporation such as ExxonMobil will be taken for a bird, so easily, by its own employees. Who is fooling who?

Every time, everyday, we hear of and see the injustice done by multinational oil companies in our community. Every time, everyday, we hear and see the residents of the community taking laws into their own hands as they try to create awareness and fight their cause. A debate is consequently generated - who's right and who's wrong? The locals or the multinationals? Who and what is to blame - the polluted rivers or the kidnappers? The local chief or the CEO? It is always a sensitive issue but I have always been of the opinion that lots of wrongs have been done to the host community but if only the perpetrators will be more sensitive and fair, over time wrongs will be made right and amicable coexistence will resume.

But how can it? If in an affluent residential area my car is hit and I am consequently threatened and victimised, one can only then imagine what goes on in the local oil producing communities? In my case, the perpetrators were stopped and crowded upon but in the local areas, who will blame them if they had burned the truck or even the police men themselves? Will we then call it a riot? Will we call them militants? Aren't they aggrieved and tired of being aggrieved ever so often?

The most ironic thing about my experience is the Safety First policy of ExxonMobil and most of the other oil companies in the country. I dare to ask if they are not aware of the reckless driving of their security vehicles. It is done everyday and everywhere and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it's done so blatantly simply because the companies choose to close an eye to it. Afterall, I guess Safety First applies to them first and foremost, and maybe it could trickle down to the rest of us. How could a driver of a safety first culture set a car in motion while I was hanging on to the door? How could he set the car in motion while the door was still ajar? Would he have done the same if I were an employee of the company? Psychologically, he has been made to believe (for whatever reason) that his employer (and their own) are the golden calf; we could be the sacrificial lambs.

More irony. My talks with the two gentlemen that paid me a visit broke down as I insisted on being provided with an alternative means of transportation for the two weeks my car will be in their company's custody for repair. They thought I should "sacrifice" and make do without a car for the two weeks. I also insisted that I get an apology letter for the misdeeds, which will also state the precautions taken to prevent a reoccurrence of such callous and unethical behaviour - the request was conveniently ignored.

A few days later I wrote again to the company and got a reply, this time from the Senior Attorney saying "we wish to inform you that the matter is under review and we will revert back to you as soon as possible." It has been five weeks since, not a new word.

In my letters, I had clearly stated that my matter needed to be urgently resolved as the detachment of my car's side mirror is a driving hazard. I would have expected that they would have a dedicated staff member(s) to address issues such as this, but then again, I guess why should they care that they have left me with a car that's a driving hazard - remember, Safety first is a selective term. They'll get back to me as soon as possible, at their convenience, if at all - it's been over a month since the accident.

I was elevated to read about the recent judgment of the US District Court in California rejecting Chevron's bid to avoid prosecution over alleged involvement in the brutal attacks on Nigerian villagers in 1998 and 1999. I bet Chevron was trying to shift the responsibility on the Nigeria police and military. But like the Judge deduced, who paid the Nigeria Police? Whose helicopters were they using?

It's sad and it's a shame. I hope in the light of the negative coverage the media gives to the citizens of exploited communities in Nigeria, the other side is now showing. We were not kidnappers and militants years ago. We only ask that the foreign companies stop exploiting us, stop using us against each other (as they have made the policemen do in my case.) That they stop acting unethically and show consideration for their host communities.


Miss Talabi lives in Lagos



http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/editorial_opinion/article04

Show me a multinational company that readily accepts responsibility and seeks to make ammends immediately.

Safety first policy applies only to employees to avoid paying huge compensation benefits.